16-50 range appeals to me as better full frame walkaround range than 24-70; but I am afraid increasing the range will likely compromise distortion figures and corner sharpness compared to wide angles with less range, etc 14-22, 16-35. 16-35 II is already not all that great in corners wide open at 35 mm end.

If Canon manages to pull off a 16-50 with good sharpness across the ranges, especially with a good 50 mm portrait end, I will likely buy that over 14-24..

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

i love this rumor. if the 14-24 accepts filters I may be interested if it's priced under $2500.I'm really interested in this 16-50 if it is sharp and around $1300 or less. I had the 17-40 but it was really soft, so I sold it. That extra 10mm of reach gives this lens a big advantage over pretty much anything else on the market(for full frame.) I can't think of anything else available for full frame that goes from that wide to that long(anybody?)This 16-50 could be an awesome everyday sorta lens for people who appreciate the 24 side of the 24-70 more than the 70. I'm just not sure I could give up my 2.8 aperture for it. Still, it is exciting to think about.

i love this rumor. if the 14-24 accepts filters I may be interested if it's priced under $2500.I'm really interested in this 16-50 if it is sharp and around $1300 or less. I had the 17-40 but it was really soft, so I sold it. That extra 10mm of reach gives this lens a big advantage over pretty much anything else on the market(for full frame.) I can't think of anything else available for full frame that goes from that wide to that long(anybody?)This 16-50 could be an awesome everyday sorta lens for people who appreciate the 24 side of the 24-70 more than the 70. I'm just not sure I could give up my 2.8 aperture for it. Still, it is exciting to think about.

Agree 100%, but somehow this seems too good to be true. It feels like pipe dream considering Canon's dragging their feet with good new products.

I am most interested in an improved 16-35. Sharper, less distortion ... smaller and lighter would be great too, even if it has to be 18-28

I'd rank the importance of resolution, Flare control and CA above distortion.

18-28 is a pretty narrow 1.5:1 ratio; in my view, and with essentially no overlap with a 24-<something> zoom. not very attractive to me; I'd rather have a 21mm prime for example, or a 14-24, if there is no updated 16-35.

A "real" 16-35 (by "real" I mean the lens lable is very close to actual focal length) is a 2:1 (or very nearly so), and provides a very good combination of "extension above 24mm" and UWA coverage. Imho there's room for both a 14-24 (a 1.7:1 ratio) and a 16-35, both in f/2.8, and with 24-70 ii caliber optics.

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum...

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum... [/quote]

lol Full heartedly agree with your take on the financial outlay on those 4 lenses. I certainly can't afford it but damn would I love to have it! 24-70 is currently on my radar

I think it's very unlikely the 14-24mm will be able to use 100mm filters.When I designed a filter holder for my Samyang 14mm, I found that anything narrower than 125mm would show up at the sides of the frame.The LEE holder for Nikon's 14-24mm is for 150mm filters.

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

I think Sabaki was just theorizing that the next zoom should be significant considering that latest zoom releases have all be building around each other and also happen to be the best in their class. Not necessarily saying everyone should go and buy all of them...

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum...

The new 100-400 IS may also be super-sharp. I'd add that in place of the 200-400.

About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum...

The new 100-400 IS may also be super-sharp. I'd add that in place of the 200-400.

I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and the mk3 extenders. It has it's price in IQ, but considering the frequency I need a focal length greater than 200mm, I'd rather save on price & weight.